My older brother moved into a new suburb some years ago. Standing at a certain point, one could bounce the floor in his house and watch the walls moving as well. Amazingly there was no corresponding cracking in the drywall and no squeaking. The wonders of modern materials and engineering. I didn't find it attractive. Soundness creates a sense of security. Could there be some yet to be documented negative influence on the social and ethical norms of the greater society? One's environment influencing the way one feels, and thinks about, and judges his surroundings? I enjoy investigating the metaphysical but have a more tangible point to make.
This summer there was a story of a home where the outdoor gas grill caught fire and soon the entire home was consumed by the flames, a complete loss. Living in the city, when an older home catches fire, I know that a structure seldom burns to the ground. That when the fire department arrives they have a lot of work to do, climbing onto the roof to vent the smoke, searching for victims, and other general fire fighting duties. Yet when they get to a single family home of modern construction how often do they have the chance to do much more than pour water on the blaze? Unfortunately too often, as a rise in fire fighter deaths is attributed to modern engineered construction materials and/or systems.
Modern multifamily structures, like we see in our own downtown here in Milwaukee, have high standards for fire separation between units built into the codes, preventing similar conflagrations. (OK maybe it's just the sprinklers) But this boom in downtown construction, much of it standing empty, also points out the money ties between our construction industry, with its contractors and unions, and the political establishment. A lot of money has been made and contributed.
In the multi-unit construction Architects are involved. Could that be one of the reasons the safety standards are higher? Or maybe it is just privacy issues in multi-unit construction that would require a more substantial construction. I am sure many in the Architectural profession promote this kind of development for ideological reasons. Is there an intentional lack of focus on single family housing for these same ideological reasons? If these multi-unit buildings are not a response to market forces and waste tax payers money, two criteria, I would consider it an unethical endeavor.
And though some Architects are involved in residential design, what is their focus? Functionality? Interior designs that meet the ever changing demands of modern families? Cost savings? And are Architects involved at all? They are not required in construction under 50,000 cf.
Systems that are engineered, using less material and cutting costs, are often (but not always) substandard when fire is added to the mix. But we have smoke detectors that get everyone out of the house safely. A product of a disposable society? If something goes wrong we throw it away and get a new one? So let us not raise the standards, cutting into the contractors profits, but let's require sprinkler systems. More work for the construction industry.
Wood is the definition of a renewable resource. Is it best to use as little as possible when constructing a home? Or would it be better to go heavier and create a home that will on average last much longer? I would say go heavier. And beyond the traditional timber framing, there are some modern engineered materials that would work just as well if not better.
There are serious issues with modern single family home construction that have not come to the forefront and in the interest of public safety they should be. Lives are on the line.
